"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Calculating the spectra and intensity of Helium, Lithium and Beryllium using only Rydberg-like formulas
Next: 'Plutonium' as a surname
From: Immortalist on 20 Jul 2010 22:17 On Jul 19, 10:00 pm, BDR529 <nos...(a)nospam.org> wrote: > On 7/20/2010 6:39 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > [snip] > > > If you ever come across any peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence > > that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere let me know > > and I will reconsider my position? > > > Fair enough? > I am poking around for a peer review of experiments that show that "Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range." Thats all that is required to smash the weak argument about peer reviews. Most "basic physics" is easily established with peer reviews. Don't you guys know any basic physics and thermodynamics, man your setting yourselves up for a big fall on this simplistic argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas > You are asking for the usual information, perhaps start readingwww.realclimate.orgwhere the role of CO2 is nicely described. > > Q
From: BDR529 on 21 Jul 2010 02:57 On 7/20/2010 10:22 PM, Benj wrote: > On Jul 20, 1:00 am, BDR529<nos...(a)nospam.org> wrote: >> On 7/20/2010 6:39 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> If you ever come across any peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence >>> that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere let me know >>> and I will reconsider my position? >> >>> Fair enough? >> >> You are asking for the usual information, perhaps start reading > www.realclimate.org > where the role of CO2 is nicely described. > > Very clever trick. You pretend that the argument is that CO2 causes > global warming vs CO2 has NO effect! In other words that CO2 is NOT a > "greenhouse gas". This puts you holowarmers on the winning side. > Because CO2 IS a "greenhouse gas"! And it DOES cause global warming! > So you win. Tax all that fossil fuel. (and ignore all the > deforestation by the power elite) > > Only there is one thing missing. It's called QUANTITY. The effect of > CO2 is SO minor that it can't have ANY SIGNIFICANT effect on climate > change! That's the scam. The difference between "none" and "no > significant". Thus you've carefully formed the debate so that you > automatically come out "winning". It's like the term "Anthropogenic > Global Warming". If anyone uses YOUR term, by default they admit that > man has caused global warming. Oh so clever! > > So yes, "Claudius Denk" has incorrectly worded his statement. Instead > of asking for evidence of "Any kind of thermal effect" effect of CO2 > on warming, he SHOULD have asked for evidence of any SIGNIFICANT > thermal effect. There ARE demonstrated thermal effects. "Wormley" > posts them incessantly. But they are simply too minor to worry about. > And THAT is what puts the lie to all the holowarming alarmists. > > [I KNEW that once the recent cooling statistics shifted to warming > (statistics are all about variations about a mean) that all the > climate scammers would be back on their program of using statistical > variations to scare everyone] > > See? It's HOT this summer! We TOLD you you needed to be scared! And it is going to be so hot that all AGW deniers melt. Q
From: Marvin the Martian on 21 Jul 2010 11:09 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:10:12 -0700, Immortalist wrote: > On Jul 20, 8:00 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:19:26 -0700, Immortalist wrote: >> > On Jul 19, 4:22 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:05:44 -0700, Immortalist wrote: >> >> > On Jul 18, 9:43 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 18, 9:11 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > I think the mistake in reasoning your attempting to illustrate is >> >> > the appeal to ignorance. Even though your own approach looks >> >> > ignorant thats not what I mean. >> >> >> > The argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by >> >> > lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed >> >> > that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false >> >> > or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved >> >> > true. >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance >> >> >> True enough about the appeal to ignorance. Ignorance neither proves >> >> no disproves the assertion being made. However, in the case of AGW, >> >> there is no theory out there that predicts that the observed warming >> >> of the 1990s was due to an increase in CO2. >> >> > Was Claudious referring to the 1990s or is this a new aspect for the >> > argument? I am to lazy to look back and frankly don't care >> >> So, I'm supposed to do your checking for you? If you don't care, I'm >> certainly not going to bother. >> >> > Why, its not important to me at the moment. I was just focusing upon > some logic in arguments someone posted into alt.philosophy. > >> >> HOWEVER, simple chemistry (equilibrium between ocean and air CO2, >> >> and between ocean Co2 and carbonate rock), the lag in the increase >> >> of CO2 in response to warming, the warming on other planets, the >> >> much stronger correlation of climate change to solar cycle, the >> >> experimentally demonstrated physical process that shows how solar >> >> cycle changes climate, the past history of climate change, all point >> >> to rejecting the AGW non- hypothesis. >> >> > In science we don't really "reject" theories, they just become more >> > or less probable on emerging evidence. One thing about science, which >> > is not like religion, is that you must be prepared to see everything >> > you believe in proved wrong. >> >> 1) This is irrelevant gibberish. >> 2) Scientist reject hypothesis that fail to predict, they don't reject >> theories. Theories predict or they don't. No "more or less probable" >> about it. >> 3) In science, you're not part of "we". >> >> > In science, a theory is an explanation. No, theories are hypotheses that have been shown to make useful predictions. "God smites people who eats pork" is an explanation but you can't test it and it is not a theory. "People get sick from eating pork infected with trichinosis" is a theory that can be tested. < snip stuff based on a false premise >
From: Bruce Richmond on 21 Jul 2010 20:32 On Jul 18, 11:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 4:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > > > > > >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > > > > > > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > > > > > Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that shows > > > > > > that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state and want to > > > > > > suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have a low level of > > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > > < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in arguing > > > > > > why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) authorities.> > > > > > > > First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science.. Science > > > > > > is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept or reject the > > > > > > hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a continuous process. > > > > > > A well known example is classical mechanics; it was tested and proven to > > > > > > be a useful theory up until the beginning of the 20th century, when it > > > > > > began to fail. Then new theories, like QM and SR, were developed to > > > > > > predict where CM failed. > > > > > > > AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s failed > > > > > > to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, that is called > > > > > > "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed on the stronger > > > > > > correlation between solar cycle and climate change and found the physical > > > > > > mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. His theory not only explains > > > > > > climate change for the last 4 billion years, but the hemispherical > > > > > > effects of climate change, the solar correlation, and the observed > > > > > > climate change on other planets that AGW fails to predict. The increase > > > > > > in CO2 is then explained by simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less > > > > > > CO2 and dissolves more carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, > > > > > > of warming. At this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > > > > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > > > > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > > > > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > > > > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > > > > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > > > > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to the > > > > > idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by the > > > > > oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of uptake > > > > > and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the sink > > > > > for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2, > > > > > but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in atmospheric > > > > > CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic CO2 produced > > > > > during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to go somewhere. > > > > > Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is it? > > > > > This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean.. > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0..... > > > > There is an annual cycle to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not > > > surprisingly, the CO2 low is in late summer and the high is in late > > > winter in the Northern hemisphere and is due to the different rates of > > > uptake and outgo due to the growing season. Fossil fuel CO2 is an > > > addition to this cycle. > > > First let me thank you for your response. It shows a lot more thought > > than the slurs and insults that are being posted here almost to the > > exclusion of all else. > > > I'm not sure how your description of an annual cycle applies to the > > graph I posted. > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > Those are multi year cycles. > > So is the analysis I present below. And if the one for CO2 at Mauna > Loa looks familiar, that is because it is. I looked at the other > temperature measures, and they looked pretty similar to the one in my > graph. Your graph? I don't see where you posted a graph or presented an analysis with multi year cycles. > Clearly *someone* is manipulating the raw data (see below) to > *somehow* to generate the data you *claim* represents CO2 and > temperature. It is not at all clear what the manipulations of the raw > CO2 data and raw temperature data are. *CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT > EXPLAIN* how the raw data was manipulated to get the graph above? Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Unlike some here I have a life. The graph was not my creation. I first saw it posted in a thread here in alt.global-warming. Pretty sure it was this one http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ee7c23ff6a25d28f?hl=en Being a skeptic I was at first skeptical ;-) I ploted the raw data to see if it looked right. Here is co2 data showing the yearly cycles. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:1/magnitude/from:1958 Plotting the mean of each data point just plots the points. Take the mean of 12 points andy you get a floating yearly average. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/magnitude/from:1958 Looks about right copared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg Here is GISS temp monthly http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1 yearly http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12 and 5 year http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:60 So the site is using the correct data. Looking at the graph http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 it was pretty obvious the yearly cycles weren't shown. As shown above those were taken out using the mean:12 command. It looked like the rising trend had been removed, making it easier to see multi year cycles. To check I tried http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 and http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992 Not sure what the math behind the isolate command is but the peaks are at the same dates while the trend has been removed. Still it looks like monthly dat, so do mean:12 to get rid of yearly cycles. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992/mean:12 or http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 Now look at the raw data again. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1958 The spikes show up in cycles there as well, and it's not so surprising that 2010 had a spike. Getting back to the lag graph, the two lines would have different slopes due to different offsets. It is easier to match them up by removing the slope. There could very well be a lag in the yearly cycles. The max co2 shows up 3 months after the min temp of winter, and min co2 shows up 3 months after max temp of summer at Mauna Loa. But there a other things that work on a yearly cycle. Better to look at longer cycles where the affects go deeper into the water and there is more lag. Anyway, as far as I can see it all looks legit. If you can think of a different reason for the close match of the cycles and the lag I would like to hear it. That's all I have time for right now. Later :) > > > > As you say, the ocean must be absorbing the "missing" anthropogenic > > > > co2, but it also must be passing it on to some other sink. > > > > What possible sink does the anthropogenic CO2 have access to that > > > other CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean does not? You still have not > > > explained how one can keep on adding CO2 from a source that takes a > > > very long time to accumulate (fossil fuels) without that having any > > > effect nor how the ocean can get more acidic (or less basic, if you > > > prefer) at the same time it is acting as the CO2 source for the > > > *increased* CO2 since the industrial revolution. Your argument simply > > > does not add up. > > > There are a lot of minerals disolved in the ocean. It is salty > > because salts are formed when acids and bases get together. I would > > not go so far as to say the added co2 does nothing, but it does not > > just keep collecting in the ocean either. > > I agree. That is why the ocean will not ever get below pH 7. But > the ocean is by no means saturated for carbon, especially at the lower > depths (colder and higher pressure) below the saturation horizon. But > distributing the C from the upper ocean through the rest of the ocean > will take about 6000 years. And even the upper ocean can become more > saturated for carbonate and bicarbonate (and lower pH) than it > currently is before there will be *chemical* rather than *biochemical* > removal. Biochemical removal in the form of CaCO3 does depend on a > source of Ca. But the *fact* is that the ocean is currently a net > sink, not a net source of atmospheric carbon. > > > > > The > > > > atmospheric co2 and co2 in solution stay in equilibrium at a constant > > > > temperature. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > > > Yes. And more atmospheric CO2 means more oceanic CO2, just as higher > > > temperature in the water means less CO2. However, the concentration > > > of CO2 in the atmosphere clearly is the more important driver of the > > > equilibrium change because we can see that the pH change (and change > > > in the saturation boundaries) is in the direction expected if oceanic > > > CO2 levels were *increasing* and not in the direction expected if > > > oceanic CO2 levels were dropping. That is, the level of CO2 is > > > increasing in *both* the atmosphere and ocean. It is not decreasing > > > in the ocean and increasing in the atmosphere. > > > I never said the ocean levels were dropping. My claim was that they > > aren't increasing at any where near the rate they would if all the > > added carbon was staying in the form of co2. As for the atmosphere > > being the more important driver, that is ridiculous. It is obvious > > from the graph that atmospheric co2 is being driven up and down by the > > much larger mass in the ocean. > > That graph is by no means clear. One of the lines claims to be > atmospheric CO2 levels, but that line differs rather dramatically from > the raw data for Mauna Loa CO2 levels for those years. I have no idea > what this graph is measuring. > > > The more important driver here is > > whatever is causing the multi year cycle in global temp. I don't know > > what that is, but it is not co2 since the co2 change lags the temp > > change. I am not going to speculate on the cause of that change and > > don't need to. What I wrote is based on the observed data. I don't > > need a working theory of how the sun was formed to observe that it > > shines. > > Again, all I have is your claim that this graph actually is what you > claim it is. I have presented the raw Mauna Loa data and it doesn't > look like your graph at all. So, again, what is this graph actually > measuring and how was the Mauna Loa CO2 data manipulated to acheive > that graph. > > > > > "At a given temperature, the composition of a pure carbonic acid > > > > solution (or of a pure CO2 solution) is completely determined by the > > > > partial pressure of carbon dioxide above the solution." > > > > > As the ocean warms it cannot hold as much co2 so it starts expelling > > > > co2 into the atmosphere, causing the atmospheric co2 to go up. The > > > > old equilibrium between the air and water doesn't apply any more > > > > because the temperature changed. As the ocean cools it can absorb > > > > more co2 out of the air, causing atmospheric co2 to decline. In both > > > > cases the change in atmospheric co2 lags behind the temperature change > > > > because it takes time for the temp change to work its way down from > > > > the surface. This is all in complete agreement with the empirical > > > > data used to construct the graph. > > > > Like I said. That can certainly be true. However, we are not seeing > > > that. Instead we are seeing an increase in *both* atmospheric and > > > ocean CO2 levels. That is what would be expected if the atmospheric > > > CO2 levels were increasing because of input CO2 from some non-oceanic > > > source, like, say, fossil fuel use. > > > Again, I have not said that the ocean levels haven't changed at all. > > I have only claimed that they have not changed to the extent that tey > > would if they were acting as a simple co2 sink as is often claimed by > > the AGW crowd. > > You may claim that, but I don't see any supporting evidence. The > ocean has more than enough capacity to absorb the half of the CO2 > pumped by humans into the atmosphere. If we were to stop doing so the > extra anthropogenic atmospheric concentration would (over 6000 years) > decay and wind up in the ocean sink. > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2 > > > > > "In the oceans > > > > There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the sea water > > > > of the oceans in the form of CO2 and carbonic acid, bicarbonate and > > > > carbonate ions as exists in the atmosphere." > > > > > With the ocean holding fifty times as much carbon as the atmosphere, > > > > its temperture driven ability to hold co2 overwhelms the atmosphere.. > > > > Very small fluctuations in ocean temp can cause significant changes in > > > > atmospheric co2, both up and down. So it is not acting as a sink so > > > > much as a buffer based on its thermal mass. > > > > Again, the evidence points to the oceans currently acting as a CO2 > > > sink for the anthropogenic CO2, not as a net source of atmospheric > > > CO2. That is because the amount of CO2 is *increasing* in both > > > atmosphere and ocean (as indicated by measurement of the atmosphere > > > and the pH change in the oceans). Maybe at some point the ocean will > > > be unable to absorb any more atmospheric CO2. But that time is not > > > now. > > > The graph clearly shows that right now the slightest increase in temp > > forces co2 out of the ocean. You may not like that, but it is what is > > observed. > > Yes. But unless there were some hidden source of CO2 coming directly > *into* the ocean and not from the atmosphere, such a temperature > induced loss of ocean CO2 would be observed by a *decrease* in ocean > carbonates/bicarbonates, not an *increase* as indicated by a pH > change. So are you claiming that there is some oceanic source of CO2 > that has been radically changing? And an increase in CO2 *from* the > ocean would still not account for the anthropogenic amount of CO2 that > we *know* has been pumped into the atmosphere. You are still > requiring *all* the anthropogenic CO2 to magically disappear from the > atmosphere only to be replaced by a magical source of CO2 that both > increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere *and* in the oceans. > > > > > Where did the "missing" anthropogenic co2 go? When co2 is disolved in > > > > water it makes carbonic acid. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid > > > > Yes. Why do you think that the oceans are becoming more acidic (less > > > basic)? Because the oceans are absorbing more CO2 because there is > > > more CO2 in the atmosphere. > > > When the ocean is pumping co2 back into the atmosphere, which the > > graph shows it is doing about half the time, it is not absorbing more > > co2 from the atmosphere. Yes, in the long run it is absorbing more, > > but it is very close to equilibrium and can go without a net gain for > > over two years at a time. Hardly the picture that some here have > > painted. > > Again, you have not explained how that graph was made and what it > represents. > > > > > > > "Carbonic acid is the organic compound with the formula H2CO3 > > > > (equivalently OC(OH)2). It is also a name sometimes given to solutions > > > > of carbon dioxide in water, which contain small amounts of H2CO3. The > > > > salts of carbonic acids are called bicarbonates (or hydrogen > > > > carbonates) and carbonates. It is a weak acid. When dissolved in > > > > water, carbon dioxide exists in equilibrium with carbonic acid:" > > > > > I'm not going to go into great detail here but it is obvious there are > > > > many carbonates that can be formed when the carbonic acid reacts with > > > > various chemicals. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate > > > > > "In geology and mineralogy, the term "carbonate" can refer both to > > > > carbonate minerals and carbonate rock (which is made of chiefly > > > > carbonate minerals), and both are dominated by the carbonate ion, > > > > CO2-3. Carbonate minerals are extremely varied and ubiquitous in > > > > chemically-precipitated sedimentary rock. The most common are calcite > > > > or calcium carbonate, CaCO3, the chief constituent of limestone (as > > > > well as the main component of mollusc shells and coral skeletons); > > > > dolomite, a calcium-magnesium carbonate CaMg(CO3)2; and siderite, or > > > > iron (II) carbonate, FeCO3, an important iron ore. Sodium carbonate > > > > ("soda" or "natron") and potassium carbonate ("potash") have been used > > > > since antiquity for cleaning and preservation, as well as for the > > > > manufacture of glass. Carbonates are widely used in industry, e.g. in > > > > iron smelting, as a raw material for Portland cement and lime > > > > manufacture, in the composition of ceramic glazes, and more." > > > > > "Most carbonate salts are insoluble in water at standard temperature > > > > and pressure, with solubility constants of less than 1×10-8. > > > > Exceptions include sodium, potassium and ammonium carbonates, as well > > > > as many uranium carbonates." > > > > > Whenever a carbonate is formed it changes the equilibrium between co2 > > > > and carbonic acid, so a co2 molecule must convert to carbonic acid to > > > > restore the equilibrium. For a given temp, when enough co2 molecules > > > > have converted to carbonic acid it upsets the equilibrium between co2 > > > > in the air and water, so a co2 molocule must be absorbed into the > > > > water to restore the balance. > > > > > So the true carbon sink isn't the ocean water as is often claimed, but > > > > the carbonates that are formed, often to precipitate out. > > There are no carbonates precipitating out in the middle of the ocean, > although some can in tidal salt pans after evaporation. Take a gallon > of sea water and start evaporating it and see how much has to > disappear before carbonates start precipitating out. Even the > biologically induced/catalyzed carbonates in shells dissolve once the > shell falls below the saturation horizon. > > > > The net rate of CO2 getting converted to CaCO3s is quite slow. It is > > > a biological process that, depending on the particular species, > > > produces aragonite or calcite shells and maintains them over the life > > > of the organism. At death, a *small* fraction gets buried under > > > either more CO3 shells or in the muck (many protist shells fall below > > > the saturation line and dissolve; the deep ocean deposits are not > > > limestones). This occurs only very slowly and only on the continental > > > shelves or atoll regions. There is no rain of chemically produced > > > CaCO3 occurring in the oceans (except in a few shallow tidal regions) > > > even in areas where there is supersaturation for CaCO3s. > > > There are many forms of carbonates that have nothing to do with > > organic processes. It is also possible for the salts formed to stay > > in suspension. I know there has been much talk of mining minerals on > > the ocean floor that have collected on the surface. I don't know > > enough about what is there to make any claims, but I doubt you do > > either. > > I know enough carbonate chemistry to know you are blowing smoke. The > fact remains that the only sink (on the timescale of decades rather > than centuries) for anthropogenic CO2 remains the upper ocean, with > the next sink being the rest of the ocean. Unless you know of another > huge source of CO2 that can account for both the increase in CO2 in > ocean waters *and* the increase in the atmosphere, the oceans are > actually absorbing about half the anthropogenic CO2 from the > atmosphere > > > > > Anyway, my point was to show that the relationships involved are not > > nearly as simple as they are often portrayed. > > But, again, you presented a graph that purported to be something to do > with atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa and temperature > measurements. Yet when I run a graph of the raw data, it looks > nothing like what you are presenting. Can you or can you not explain > the manipulation of the raw data that resulted in the graph you > presented?
From: Bruce Richmond on 30 Jul 2010 20:58
On Jul 21, 8:32 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 11:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 4:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > > > > > > >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > > > > > > > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > > > > > > Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that shows > > > > > > > that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state and want to > > > > > > > suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have a low level of > > > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > > > < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in arguing > > > > > > > why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) authorities.> > > > > > > > > First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. Science > > > > > > > is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept or reject the > > > > > > > hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a continuous process. > > > > > > > A well known example is classical mechanics; it was tested and proven to > > > > > > > be a useful theory up until the beginning of the 20th century, when it > > > > > > > began to fail. Then new theories, like QM and SR, were developed to > > > > > > > predict where CM failed. > > > > > > > > AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s failed > > > > > > > to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, that is called > > > > > > > "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed on the stronger > > > > > > > correlation between solar cycle and climate change and found the physical > > > > > > > mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. His theory not only explains > > > > > > > climate change for the last 4 billion years, but the hemispherical > > > > > > > effects of climate change, the solar correlation, and the observed > > > > > > > climate change on other planets that AGW fails to predict. The increase > > > > > > > in CO2 is then explained by simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less > > > > > > > CO2 and dissolves more carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, > > > > > > > of warming. At this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > > > > > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > > > > > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > > > > > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > > > > > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > > > > > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > > > > > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to the > > > > > > idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by the > > > > > > oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of uptake > > > > > > and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the sink > > > > > > for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2, > > > > > > but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in atmospheric > > > > > > CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic CO2 produced > > > > > > during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to go somewhere. > > > > > > Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is it? > > > > > > This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > > > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > > > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean. > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > > > There is an annual cycle to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not > > > > surprisingly, the CO2 low is in late summer and the high is in late > > > > winter in the Northern hemisphere and is due to the different rates of > > > > uptake and outgo due to the growing season. Fossil fuel CO2 is an > > > > addition to this cycle. > > > > First let me thank you for your response. It shows a lot more thought > > > than the slurs and insults that are being posted here almost to the > > > exclusion of all else. > > > > I'm not sure how your description of an annual cycle applies to the > > > graph I posted. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0..... > > > > Those are multi year cycles. > > > So is the analysis I present below. And if the one for CO2 at Mauna > > Loa looks familiar, that is because it is. I looked at the other > > temperature measures, and they looked pretty similar to the one in my > > graph. > > Your graph? I don't see where you posted a graph or presented an > analysis with multi year cycles. > > > Clearly *someone* is manipulating the raw data (see below) to > > *somehow* to generate the data you *claim* represents CO2 and > > temperature. It is not at all clear what the manipulations of the raw > > CO2 data and raw temperature data are. *CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT > > EXPLAIN* how the raw data was manipulated to get the graph above? > > Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Unlike some here I have a > life. > > The graph was not my creation. I first saw it posted in a thread here > in alt.global-warming. Pretty sure it was this one > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ee7c23ff6a25d28... > > Being a skeptic I was at first skeptical ;-) > > I ploted the raw data to see if it looked right. Here is co2 data > showing the yearly cycles. > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:1/magnitude/from:1958 > > Plotting the mean of each data point just plots the points. > > Take the mean of 12 points andy you get a floating yearly average. > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/magnitude/from:1958 > > Looks about right copared to > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg > > Here is GISS temp monthly > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1 > > yearly > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12 > > and 5 year > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:60 > > So the site is using the correct data. > > Looking at the graph > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > it was pretty obvious the yearly cycles weren't shown. As shown above > those were taken out using the mean:12 command. It looked like the > rising trend had been removed, making it easier to see multi year > cycles. To check I tried > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > and > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992 > > Not sure what the math behind the isolate command is but the peaks are > at the same dates while the trend has been removed. Still it looks > like monthly dat, so do mean:12 to get rid of yearly cycles. > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992/mean:12 > > or > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 > > Now look at the raw data again. > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1958 > > The spikes show up in cycles there as well, and it's not so surprising > that 2010 had a spike. > > Getting back to the lag graph, the two lines would have different > slopes due to different offsets. It is easier to match them up by > removing the slope. There could very well be a lag in the yearly > cycles. The max co2 shows up 3 months after the min temp of winter, > and min co2 shows up 3 months after max temp of summer at Mauna Loa. > But there a other things that work on a yearly cycle. Better to look > at longer cycles where the affects go deeper into the water and there > is more lag. > > Anyway, as far as I can see it all looks legit. If you can think of a > different reason for the close match of the cycles and the lag I would > like to hear it. > > That's all I have time for right now. Later :) So I take the time to write a fairly long explaination and you can't find the time to respond. :-/ |